Speaking of evil imperialist World Guvmint...

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I've recently come across the Wiki article on the UN Parliamentary Assembly, and it made me thinking. First, here's what it says:

"A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is a proposed addition to the United Nations System that would allow for participation of member nations' legislators and, eventually, direct election of United Nations (UN) parliament members by citizens worldwide. The idea was raised at the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920s and again following the end of World War II in 1945, but remained dormant throughout the Cold War. In the 1990s and 2000s, the rise of global trade and the power of world organizations that govern it led to calls for a parliamentary assembly to scrutinize their activity. The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly was formed in 2007 to coordinate pro-UNPA efforts, which as of July 2013 has received the support of over 800 Members of Parliament from over 100 countries worldwide and is supported by over 5,000 people.

Supporters have set forth possible UNPA implementations, including promulgation of a new treaty; creation of a UNPA as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly; and evolution of a UNPA from the Inter-Parliamentary Union or another nongovernmental organization. Several proposals for apportionment of votes have been raised to address disparities in UN members' population and economic power. CEUNPA advocates initially giving the UNPA advisory powers and gradually increasing its authority over the UN system. Opponents cite issues such as funding, voter turnout, and undemocratic UN member nations as reasons for abandoning the project altogether."

Although I'm almost certain how most Americans would feel about this (being the freedom-loving patriots that they are), I have to ask. Do you see this leading anywhere good? Would it be a step in the right direction, or a route to disaster? And are you scared of the Illuminati?

On the one side, there are those who support more political integration. Of course there's a caveat: it's immensely important how exactly the idea would be implemented. There's some vagueness in the phrase "several proposals for appointment of votes have been raised to address disparities in UN members' population and economic power". This could be a major point of contention. I expect the US and EU wouldn't be too happy with the amount of weight an emerging China, possibly in alliance with Russia and some others could have in an organization of that sort.

The EU might be more in favor of a system where a few leading countries would form the foundation of the organization, while others get added with time, depending on the way they meet certain political and economic criteria (what criteria though? / who sets the criteria? / who oversees them and how do they enforce them?) This would allow for example to tame rogue states, and allocate resources for reconstruction in case of conflict, disaster, or economic problems.

Those arguing in favor of integration tend to cite the advantage of having a harmonized economic regulation, which could bring a harmonization of political systems as well. Granted, there are still quite a few countries indulging in the idea of nationalization, and others practically ruled by massive corporations and banks, and the latter probably would have reservations about the idea of integration, for fear that those corporations might move to areas where the regulatory climate is more favorable for their dealings.

Then of course there's the argument that the idea of a strict majority vote by countries deciding major issues enforceable and applicable to the entire wold probably scares the shit out of the minority elites currently running everything.

There's a different proposal: breaking the vote down more in terms of population size, i.e. political power being directly proportional to populations - which is indeed the principle that most countries with voting systems are using domestically. In that case, this would give huge advantage to countries like China and India, not to mention Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, The Philippines, Brazil, etc. I'm sure some would see a problem with that, too. If anything, it could create an incentive for population growth for political purposes, which sounds kind of grotesque.

The alternative proposal is one vote for each country. Which sounds even more ridiculous, given the huge disparities in terms of size and population. Not to mention that it would potentially incentivize countries to start splitting up like amoebas, in order to get more votes. ;-)

On the other side, there are those who have some valid concerns about all this. Chances are that this proposed system would only perpetuate the power of the major countries, and validate their neo-colonial aspirations, now in a formalized way. Which would ultimately undermine the whole purpose of the undertaking. Any thoughts?

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I know what this is about. IT'S ABOUT TAKING AMERICA'S GUNS!

Those international bureaucrats will pry America's guns from America's cold dead fingers! Blood shall spill!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Actually its about taking america's gays.

we've been giving them entirely too much lee-way and the combined populations of China, Russia, and the Middle East are going to vote to have them all rounded up and "cured" the moment they can stop arguing amongst themselves long enough to exercise "the will of the people".

;)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I'm sure a significant part of the American population would join China, Russia and the Middle East in that noble undertaking, if they're to have it their way.

Loved the "lee-way" misspelling, btw.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So?

Point being that "harmonization" is only attractive to people who imagine themselves as one of "the desirables" who'll get to enforce their will on the out-group rather than seeing themselves as someone else's "undesireable".

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yeees, yes, we're all familiar with this libertarian Maverick schtick.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Just as I am familiar with this squishy-headed collectivist schtick.

Everything will be rainbows and unicorns this time, we have the right sort of people in charge.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

No, we better wallow within our petty fiefdoms till kingdom come. Don't you just dare trespass onto my property! I've got a rifle!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Don't start nothing, there wont be nothing.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever you say at this point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I dunno. Give me global power over the entire planet and I daresay I'd redesign it in my image. I wouldn't have to live three generations beyond what that would mean and I daresay my vision would be dystopian, all right, but not really collectivist. More God-Emperor of Mankind who would command the whole world to obey decrees ala Leto II Atreides.

See, these fantasies don't always require the dichotomy you'd want. Sometimes people want world domination because if they had the chance to be, they'd want to be the supervillain, not the superhero. ^.^

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Sounds good for an ideal world. But in our real world full of corruption, this would only create the conditions for even greater corruption.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well ya, that's the real reason people want it.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Only some people. :-)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The smart ones at least.

As always, cui bono?

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Populus callidus. :-)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Serious question; Is "harmonization" even desirable? If so why?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Why not?

Some people think humankind ought to move on to the next stage, and step away from nationalism.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." -- Albert Einstein.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That doesn't answer the question.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Now you know what it's like.

And I think it does. You just don't like the answer.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"moving on to the next stage" is a meaningless platitude if you don't have a "next stage" to move on to.

I don't think that you've actually thought about the answer.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm aware that you're unable to recognize that the next stage in this case is meant to denote a borderless global society.

Saying I'm not thinking while I'm talking is insulting. Do you have any other insults to share?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Is a "borderless global society" desirable? If so why?

What makes you think it would resemble anywhere that you would want to live?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You may call me a dreamer
But I'm not the only one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type.C2.A0I_civilization_methods).

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's still not an answer seeing as how power generation has little to do with "harmonization" or building a "borderless global society".

Like I said, I don't think you've actually thought about this.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yawn.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What kind of borderless global society? Islamists advocate a global borderless society of a unified Umma under a Caliph who is the Amir-al-Musllimin. Is that the vision? Or is it some poor man's version of Star Trek that neglects that Star Trek required Khan Noonien Singh *and then a nuclear war that conveniently killed off wide swathes of the poor non-white parts of Earth and left only the rich white parts mostly intact* to get there?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

What kind of borderless global society?

A good one. :P

Star Trek required Khan Noonien Singh

Nerd alert OMGZ!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Good for whom? Who watches the watchmen in this society?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You... me...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So you have no specifics whatsoever of what the new era should look like? OK then.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Anyone who claims they have a plan for what the future should look like, is either delusional or a liar. So, no, I don't have specifics. Do you?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would love to hear the specifics of how moving away from nationalism makes humanity automatically progressive and working together for the common good. ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Taliban aren't nationalist but I don't think anyone except their leadership wants a world under *their* anti-nationalist vision of a boot stamping on a human face forever. And if you really want a global point of view, welcome to the fun and games of getting the Taliban, China, the United States, and secular Europe and its bastard colonial spawn to agree to a single agenda. You'd need God himself to do it and He might have problems with it.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Well, not moving away from nationalism definitely doesn't help make humanity progressive and working together for the common good - is all I know, and have seen with my own eyes.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Moving away from it in a direction that's as bad as nationalism or worse certainly doesn't help anything at all.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

'K...

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Of all the obvious objections that come to mind, this one seems to me like the most important.

(http://s265.photobucket.com/user/policraticus/media/STALINcopy.jpg.html)

A government has to be able to defend itself, to protect its citizens and enforce its laws. Without a credible military any parliament is nothing more than a glorified debting society.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Who says a UN army (https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/199/40955.html) hasn't been proposed?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Not me. It seems about as likely as an international parliament.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Until the UN is willing to support some kind of pan-human military with a shit-ton of firepower, including nukes, behind it, the UN will remain a glorified talking shop for people to bang their shoes on tables to get attention from the global press and nothing more. I would actually support a world government but then I'm all in favor of turning scenarios from science fiction into science fact.